In today's Petruska v. Gannon University,
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051222p.pdf, the Third Circuit held
(2-1, per the late Judge Becker), that the ministerial exception to
antidiscrimination law applies only when the religious employer's
actions are motivated by the employer's religious beliefs. Thus, if a
church fires (or refuses to hire) a minister based on the minister's
race or sex, the church is *not* immune from an antidiscrimination
lawsuit unless it can show that the race or sex discrimination was
religiously motivated, as opposed to the product of nonreligious
prejudices on the decisionmaker's part.
The other cases that have recognized a ministerial exception
have generally (as best I can tell, unanimously, if one counts those
cases that have confronted the issue) held that church decisions about
ministers' employment are *categorically* immune, with no need for a
determination of whether the church's motive was religious. The Third
Circuit thus departs from the dominant rule for ministerial exception
cases, and follows a path that's more common in other religious freedom
(whether pre-Smith Free Exercise or RFRA) cases, where the claimant must
show a sincerely held religious belief animating his actions.
Any thoughts on (a) whether the Third Circuit was right, and (b)
whether the Supreme Court is likely to grant cert to resolve the newly
created circuit split?
Eugene
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
